(Advance apologies for writing way too much yet again)
So for my urban education class last week we had to prepare and present a collage displaying our culture as a person and as an educator.
I really didn't enjoy this project.
Apparently several of my classmates didn't enjoy it either, they didn't want to think about or discuss the events that have shaped them or were disturbed by the feelings that arose in putting the collage together.
I didn't like it for a different reason: I *hate* doing "artsy" stuff. Give me a textbook, 700 pages of notes and 12 hours to study for a midterm and I'm as happy as a clam. I thrive under the "read, lecture, regurgitate" format of teaching that the current theory of education deplores. And I actually learn pretty well in that format, how else do you think I got my Ph.D? But I do accept that I'm a little unusual in that regard and I'm happy to adapt my style to whatever will work best for my students.
I found it very interesting how many different interpretations of culture my fellow students had. Some people focused on music/TV/movies that were important to them. Some people focused on things that are important in their lives now. I focused on the things in my life that have shaped my culture. Things that have helped determine my values and beliefs. Short version: my family (parents/siblings and wife/sons), my environment (being from Alaska), school (gee, I've only spent 90% of my life as a student of one kind or another) and AA (which plays a huge role in who I am now. Trust me, you don't want to know the guy I was prior to AA).
Talking about being a recovering alcoholic and being in AA was a lot harder than I thought it would be. I'm typically pretty open about my disease, because it does play a big role in my life and in who I am. But I struggle a lot with the expectation that people will react negatively when they find out I'm an alcoholic. There are a lot of negative characterizations of alcoholics out there, and I have had situations where I think people have reacted negatively when finding out I'm an alcoholic. And the people I'm in class with are people whose opinions I value and who I want to think I'm a good person. I put several weeks of thought into whether or not I'd talk about my disease in my classes. But in the end, I decided it would have been dishonest to not talk about something that is such a big part of who I am. I also decided that it would be helpful for me to work through my fears and try and become more comfortable with who and what I am. Let's face it, my fears about peoples reactions are really just a reflection of my own thinking and the discomfort I feel in being an alcoholic. For the most part, talking about it in class wasn't bad. The rough part was that both my professor and program director decided to hang out with my group when I talked about my collage, and I got very flustered when I got to the AA portion. But overall it went well. But enough of that...
There were actually several commonalities between the different collages presented. Family was definitely a major theme for most of us. Important activities were another. I had my participation in AA on my collage. Other people had music, several had various sports. But most people had an favorite activity or two appear on their collage.
As a future educator, I think collages like this can be a very useful tool. I would certainly try and carefully explain that nothing had to be put on there that the student wasn't comfortable with and really just put a lot of effort into making sure everyone was comfortable with the project. Doing the collage was useful to me in terms of evaluating my strengths and weaknesses as an educator. For example my culture as an educator is dominated by my extensive formal schooling. I have lots of experience as a student at every level of education. But I'm pretty weak on "real world" experience. In knowing this about myself I can better prepare as a teacher, focusing on my stregths and buttressing my weaknesses.
I think students can learn similar things about themselves by putting together a similar collage. But I really think aa teacher can learn a great deal about his class and how he or she relates to that class through this. Commonalities between the teacher and the students may suggest effective topics or strategies to teach. Commonalities between students may suggest topics the teacher could study up on to better relate to the students. One of my classmates who is currently teaching had students ask for "Hannah Montana" related material, a topic she knew nothing about. But by being willing to listen and adapt to the things her students are into, she can become a more effective teacher.
Okay, I'm shutting up now, sorry for yet another dissertation-length post!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
The "Real" Cost of Living in NJ...
So, as part of a "webquest" our professor assigned, we were assigned to read an article on the "Real" Cost of Living in New Jersey. Let's face it, the federal standards of poverty, very poor, poor, etc. are not very useful in most cases. It is very easy to make enough money to be far over the federal poverty cap, yet still have difficulty making ends meet.
This article presents a different, and I feel more accurate, take on cost of living. First of all, it takes into account more than just food. If you didn't know, federal poverty guidlines are based on the assumption that food equals one third of the budget. Multiply that by 3 and you have the federal poverty level income. Easy? Yes. Accurate? Not so much.
Another thing I really liked about the article was it took childcare into account when considering cost of living. As a father of a child who just started school and another who will be starting life in a couple months, I was gratified to see something that acknowledged how huge an expenditure child care can be. Before our son started school childcare was probably our #2 cost each month, behind housing. And that was with just one child.
There are some things about the article I didn't like. One big thing was the articles tendency to focus on "one parent, one school-age child and one preschool age child" as their typical family unit. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't stirke me as the "normal" household, despite the articles claims that it was the more useful measure. It isn't my household, nor is it the household of anyone I know, off the top of my head.
Another thing I disliked about the article was their use of medians and average values in their calculations. Especially for housing. I think median housing costs can be easily and severely skewed by small ammounts of highly affluent housing. Say you have an area with 90% cheap housing but one area (10%) of ultra-affluent mansions (ever been to Glen Ridge? Just kidding, they don't have cheap housing). The average housing cost would come out much higher than the "norm" and you could conclude that most people in that area didn't have the income to live there, when it reality there was plenty of housing that fit their budgets. And NJ certainly has a good chunk of highly affluent housing areas, much more it seems than other parts of the country I've lived.
To put it another way, I know many young people in Essex County (single, no kids) who don't make anywhere near what this report says they should be making in order to meet the cost of living (they would have perhaps 50% wage adequacy, according to this report). But they get by just fine. They do have economic difficulties, but they don't have major issues covering the necessities of life. And totally without government support, I might add.
So I struggle with the validity of the data and conclusions in this report, based on my own experiences. I do think the guidlines set forth in this report are an improvement over standard federal guidlines, but I still don't know that they're a truly accurate measure of the "real" cost of living. I'd expand, but I'm making an effort to shorten my posts enough so that they don't resemble "War and Peace" any more.
This article presents a different, and I feel more accurate, take on cost of living. First of all, it takes into account more than just food. If you didn't know, federal poverty guidlines are based on the assumption that food equals one third of the budget. Multiply that by 3 and you have the federal poverty level income. Easy? Yes. Accurate? Not so much.
Another thing I really liked about the article was it took childcare into account when considering cost of living. As a father of a child who just started school and another who will be starting life in a couple months, I was gratified to see something that acknowledged how huge an expenditure child care can be. Before our son started school childcare was probably our #2 cost each month, behind housing. And that was with just one child.
There are some things about the article I didn't like. One big thing was the articles tendency to focus on "one parent, one school-age child and one preschool age child" as their typical family unit. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't stirke me as the "normal" household, despite the articles claims that it was the more useful measure. It isn't my household, nor is it the household of anyone I know, off the top of my head.
Another thing I disliked about the article was their use of medians and average values in their calculations. Especially for housing. I think median housing costs can be easily and severely skewed by small ammounts of highly affluent housing. Say you have an area with 90% cheap housing but one area (10%) of ultra-affluent mansions (ever been to Glen Ridge? Just kidding, they don't have cheap housing). The average housing cost would come out much higher than the "norm" and you could conclude that most people in that area didn't have the income to live there, when it reality there was plenty of housing that fit their budgets. And NJ certainly has a good chunk of highly affluent housing areas, much more it seems than other parts of the country I've lived.
To put it another way, I know many young people in Essex County (single, no kids) who don't make anywhere near what this report says they should be making in order to meet the cost of living (they would have perhaps 50% wage adequacy, according to this report). But they get by just fine. They do have economic difficulties, but they don't have major issues covering the necessities of life. And totally without government support, I might add.
So I struggle with the validity of the data and conclusions in this report, based on my own experiences. I do think the guidlines set forth in this report are an improvement over standard federal guidlines, but I still don't know that they're a truly accurate measure of the "real" cost of living. I'd expand, but I'm making an effort to shorten my posts enough so that they don't resemble "War and Peace" any more.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What is urban?
So, continuing from my previous post, what is it that makes an area "Urban"? "Rural"? "Suburban"? Comparing Anchorage, AK and Newark, NJ there isn't a major difference in population. Racially Anchorage is a lot "whiter" than Newark (~70% overall vs. ~25% overall). Is race a way to judge "urbanicity"? Is income or poverty a way to judge "urbanicity"?
According to wikipedia for Anchorage:
"The median income for a household in the city is $55,546, and the median income for a family is $63,682. The per capita income for the city is $25,287. 5.1% of families and 7.3% of the population are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 8.8% of those under the age of 18 and 6.4% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line."
While Newark:
"The median income for a household in the city was $26,913, and the median income for a family was $30,781. The per capita income for the city was $13,009. 28.4% of the population and 25.5% of families were below the poverty line. 36.6% of those under the age of 18 and 24.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line. In 2003, the city's unemployment rate was 12%."
So Anchorage has significantly less poverty and higher overall incomes (though I'm willing to bet Anchorage has a higher overall cost of living as well). Is this a way to judge whether an area is "urban"? I don't think so. While I do believe race and income play a significant role in the general perception of urban areas, there are certainly suburban and rural areas with high minority rates and low income, but they would certainly not be considered "urban" simply because of this fact.
But there are a couple major differences between these two cities I keep coming back to. Namely, population density and surrounding areas. There are major, colossal differences between Anchorage and Newark in these categories, and, to me at least, these are two attributes that shape how I discern between urban, suburban and rural areas.
On surrounding area: Anchorage is surrounded by a whole lot of nothing. Wilderness. I mean we're talking Call of the Wild around there. There are some rural suburbs, some farmland to the north and the tourist destinations on the Kenai Pennisula to the south (which are multiple hours away and not considered part of Anchorage) but mostly you have a city surrounded by undeveloped (or undevelopable) wilderness.
Newark's surrounding area? Hmmm, New York City? The Oranges? Hoboken? Are you seeing a trend here? Newark is surrounded by more cities, suburbs of cities and suburbs of the suburbs. It is just people, people everywhere as far as the eye can see.
If you consider Newark part of the Greater New York Metropolitan Area (which the US census does) then it is part of a metropolis of over 18 million people. Anchorage? Even counting the rural suburbs the Anchorage Metropolitan Area tops out at under 400,000 people. That is a huge difference there.
That ties into population density. As I said, Anchorage and Newark have similar populations. The difference? Newark comprises some 26 square miles. That includes waterways, airports and rail lines. Anchorage comprises just over 1800 square miles. Admittedly a lot of that land does not support people, being mountains (most of Chugach State Park is within the Anchorage city limits), tundra, wetlands, waterways etc. But it is still a huge difference. To put it in perspective, the city of Anchorage is larger than the *state* or Rhode Island. If you took all of New Jersey from New Brunswick north, that'd be around the size of Anchorage.
Net result? Anchorage has a population density of ~164/square mile. Newark? 11,400 people per square mile. Just a bit of a difference there. And I really believe these are two aspects that really help define why one is urban and the other is not. I'll expand more on this later hopefully, but this is too long as it is and I have to get back to work. :-)
According to wikipedia for Anchorage:
"The median income for a household in the city is $55,546, and the median income for a family is $63,682. The per capita income for the city is $25,287. 5.1% of families and 7.3% of the population are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 8.8% of those under the age of 18 and 6.4% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line."
While Newark:
"The median income for a household in the city was $26,913, and the median income for a family was $30,781. The per capita income for the city was $13,009. 28.4% of the population and 25.5% of families were below the poverty line. 36.6% of those under the age of 18 and 24.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line. In 2003, the city's unemployment rate was 12%."
So Anchorage has significantly less poverty and higher overall incomes (though I'm willing to bet Anchorage has a higher overall cost of living as well). Is this a way to judge whether an area is "urban"? I don't think so. While I do believe race and income play a significant role in the general perception of urban areas, there are certainly suburban and rural areas with high minority rates and low income, but they would certainly not be considered "urban" simply because of this fact.
But there are a couple major differences between these two cities I keep coming back to. Namely, population density and surrounding areas. There are major, colossal differences between Anchorage and Newark in these categories, and, to me at least, these are two attributes that shape how I discern between urban, suburban and rural areas.
On surrounding area: Anchorage is surrounded by a whole lot of nothing. Wilderness. I mean we're talking Call of the Wild around there. There are some rural suburbs, some farmland to the north and the tourist destinations on the Kenai Pennisula to the south (which are multiple hours away and not considered part of Anchorage) but mostly you have a city surrounded by undeveloped (or undevelopable) wilderness.
Newark's surrounding area? Hmmm, New York City? The Oranges? Hoboken? Are you seeing a trend here? Newark is surrounded by more cities, suburbs of cities and suburbs of the suburbs. It is just people, people everywhere as far as the eye can see.
If you consider Newark part of the Greater New York Metropolitan Area (which the US census does) then it is part of a metropolis of over 18 million people. Anchorage? Even counting the rural suburbs the Anchorage Metropolitan Area tops out at under 400,000 people. That is a huge difference there.
That ties into population density. As I said, Anchorage and Newark have similar populations. The difference? Newark comprises some 26 square miles. That includes waterways, airports and rail lines. Anchorage comprises just over 1800 square miles. Admittedly a lot of that land does not support people, being mountains (most of Chugach State Park is within the Anchorage city limits), tundra, wetlands, waterways etc. But it is still a huge difference. To put it in perspective, the city of Anchorage is larger than the *state* or Rhode Island. If you took all of New Jersey from New Brunswick north, that'd be around the size of Anchorage.
Net result? Anchorage has a population density of ~164/square mile. Newark? 11,400 people per square mile. Just a bit of a difference there. And I really believe these are two aspects that really help define why one is urban and the other is not. I'll expand more on this later hopefully, but this is too long as it is and I have to get back to work. :-)
I hate writing!
There, I said it. Writing is definitely not one of my favorite things to do. Not that I'm bad at it. On the contrary, I've had people tell me most of my life that I have a gift for writing. I've had people suggest I get more into writing, that I could be very successful as a writer. But God do I hate the actual process.
I'm currently working on a paper for my Urban Education class that's due tomorrow night. It's not a particularly tough paper (compared to writing scientific journal articles it's a cakewalk, albeit with very different "rules") but it's the process of organizing my thoughts and shaping them into a coherent whole that gets me. The paper is supposed to be on my frame of references regarding urban areas and urban education. Which I'm interpreting as describing how events in my life have shaped my views and preconceptions on urban education. It doesn't help that I'm a perfectionist, and I constantly worry, and reread, and edit, trying to fit my writing into my perfect ideal of what it "should" be. Which frequently involves trying to read the instructors mind, with variable ammounts of success. I'll get it done (though it may involve working till 1am tonight, my schedule being what it is) and it'll most likely be good, but I still hate the process.
Which brings me to my next point, using words like "hate". We had a discussion in class on this topic, based on our readings in the text "Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life". The book states that suburban, middle class children use words like hate far more often than working class and poor children. Okay, that fits in with my experience. I use the word hate all the time, see the title of this post. I consider hate to be a relatively mild word. Now when I use words like "loathe", "detest" and "despise" you can assume I *really* mean it. But in class we discussed how in poorer areas words like hate are considered inappropriate because, to many people, poor equals black/minority and, being frequent victims of hate (why are racially-based offenses referred to as "hate crimes"?), minorities charge the word hate with meaning that is absent in more affluent, whiter communities. One of my classmates made a nice post summarizing the discussion in her blog.
But while I can understand intellectually where the belief is coming from, I don't really agree with charging words like hate with extra meaning. Now I'll admit to being a nice middle class white boy who has never faced discrimination and hate the way many minorities have. But I've always believed that words only have the power you give them. There are a lot of "charged" words out there. Just look at George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't say on TV! (Obviously, bad language and NSFW!) I think making a big deal over words actually encourages kids to use them, because they're "more adult". Growing up for me, profanity was strictly prohibited. I swore like a sailor, at least when my mom wasn't around, cause that's what grown ups and "cool" people did. Or so I believed.
In my opinion and based on my experiences, reacting to and making a big deal about words, behaviors and actions that bother you frequently (but there are of course exceptions) encourages people to continue with the objectionable behavior. Ignoring it or acting like it isn't a big deal reduces the power of the word or behavior and removes a lot of the incentive people have for using the word.
But that's just my personal opinion.
I'm currently working on a paper for my Urban Education class that's due tomorrow night. It's not a particularly tough paper (compared to writing scientific journal articles it's a cakewalk, albeit with very different "rules") but it's the process of organizing my thoughts and shaping them into a coherent whole that gets me. The paper is supposed to be on my frame of references regarding urban areas and urban education. Which I'm interpreting as describing how events in my life have shaped my views and preconceptions on urban education. It doesn't help that I'm a perfectionist, and I constantly worry, and reread, and edit, trying to fit my writing into my perfect ideal of what it "should" be. Which frequently involves trying to read the instructors mind, with variable ammounts of success. I'll get it done (though it may involve working till 1am tonight, my schedule being what it is) and it'll most likely be good, but I still hate the process.
Which brings me to my next point, using words like "hate". We had a discussion in class on this topic, based on our readings in the text "Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life". The book states that suburban, middle class children use words like hate far more often than working class and poor children. Okay, that fits in with my experience. I use the word hate all the time, see the title of this post. I consider hate to be a relatively mild word. Now when I use words like "loathe", "detest" and "despise" you can assume I *really* mean it. But in class we discussed how in poorer areas words like hate are considered inappropriate because, to many people, poor equals black/minority and, being frequent victims of hate (why are racially-based offenses referred to as "hate crimes"?), minorities charge the word hate with meaning that is absent in more affluent, whiter communities. One of my classmates made a nice post summarizing the discussion in her blog.
But while I can understand intellectually where the belief is coming from, I don't really agree with charging words like hate with extra meaning. Now I'll admit to being a nice middle class white boy who has never faced discrimination and hate the way many minorities have. But I've always believed that words only have the power you give them. There are a lot of "charged" words out there. Just look at George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't say on TV! (Obviously, bad language and NSFW!) I think making a big deal over words actually encourages kids to use them, because they're "more adult". Growing up for me, profanity was strictly prohibited. I swore like a sailor, at least when my mom wasn't around, cause that's what grown ups and "cool" people did. Or so I believed.
In my opinion and based on my experiences, reacting to and making a big deal about words, behaviors and actions that bother you frequently (but there are of course exceptions) encourages people to continue with the objectionable behavior. Ignoring it or acting like it isn't a big deal reduces the power of the word or behavior and removes a lot of the incentive people have for using the word.
But that's just my personal opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
